evaluation of augmented-reality applications for bim-based ... · 2.1 building information modeling...
Post on 26-Aug-2020
4 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Technische Universität München
Ingenieurfakultät Bau Geo Umwelt
Lehrstuhl für Computergestützte Modellierung und Simulation
Evaluation of augmented-reality applications for
BIM-based design reviews
Bachelorthesis
für den Bachelor of Science Studiengang Bauingenieurwesen
Autor: Hedi Moalla
Matrikelnummer: 03689058
1. Betreuer: Prof. Dr.-Ing. André Borrmann
2. Betreuer: M. Sc. Jimmy Abualdenien
3.Betreuer: M.Sc. Florian Noichl
Ausgabedatum: 07. January 2020
Abgabedatum: 09. June 202
Abstract II
Architecture Engineering Construction (AEC) industry are known for their inefficient
service, poor quality, delivery delay, and cost overrun. To overcome these challenges,
the construction industry is adopting a new method called Building Information Model-
ing (BIM). This procedure uses large databases of information to characterize almost
all qualities and aspects of a structure or system. BIM is currently used for projects’
design phases; therefore, BIM engineers complain about the lack of relevance during
on-site work. With the help of augmented reality (AR), BIM models will move to the
construction site. In the first part of the thesis, two research questions will be answered:
What are the beneficial effects that AR brings to BIM (RQ1)?
What are the limitation and challenges of adopting AR and BIM at a con-
struction site (RQ2)?
In the second part of the thesis, several AR and BIM applications are reviewed and
explained.
Abstract
Zusammenfassung III
Architecture Engineering Construction (AEC) Industrie ist bekannt für ineffizienten Ser-
vice, schlechte Qualität, Lieferverzögerung und Kostenüberschreitung. Um diese Her-
ausforderungen zu bewältigen, setzt die Bauindustrie eine neue Methode ein, die als
Building Information Modeling (BIM) bezeichnet wird. Dieses Verfahren verwendet
große Informationsdaten, Um fast alle Eigenschaften und Aspekte einer Struktur oder
eines Systems zu charakterisieren. BIM wird derzeit für die Entwurfsphasen von Pro-
jekten verwendet. Daher beschweren sich die BIM-ingenieure über die mangelnde Re-
levanz bei der Arbeit vor Ort. Mit hilfe von Augmented Reality (AR) werden BIM-Mo-
delle von der Entwurfsphase auf die Baustelle verschoben. Im ersten Teil der Bachelor
Arbeit werden zwei Forschungsfragen beantwortet:
Welche positiven Auswirkungen hat AR auf BIM (RQ1)?
Was sind die Einschränkungen und Herausforderungen bei der Einfüh-
rung von AR und BIM an einer Baustelle (RQ2)?
Im zweiten Teil der Bachelor Arbeit werden verschiedene AR und BIM Anwendungen
überprüft and erläutert.
Zusammenfassung
Contents IV
Vorwort Fehler! Textmarke nicht definiert.
Abstract II
Zusammenfassung III
Contents IV
List of figures VI
List of tables VIII
Abbreviations IX
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Motivation ..................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Research goal and structure ......................................................................... 2
2 Literature Review 3
2.1 Building Information Modeling ....................................................................... 3
2.2 Augmented Reality ........................................................................................ 5
2.2.1 Terminology ..................................................................................................5
2.2.2 AR Application ..............................................................................................7
2.2.3 Technological principals .............................................................................. 10
2.2.4 Integrating Augmented Reality with Building Information Modeling ............ 25
2.2.5 Conclusion .................................................................................................. 29
3 Market Analysis 31
3.1 Gamma AR ................................................................................................. 31
3.2 ARki ............................................................................................................ 33
3.3 DAQRI ........................................................................................................ 35
3.4 Dalux Viewer ............................................................................................... 36
3.5 Fologram ..................................................................................................... 39
3.6 AR Mapper .................................................................................................. 40
3.7 Smart Reality .............................................................................................. 41
Contents
Contents V
3.8 Visual Vocal ................................................................................................ 42
3.9 Storyboard VR ............................................................................................ 44
3.10 Trimble ........................................................................................................ 45
3.11 Conclusion .................................................................................................. 48
4 Conclusion and Future work 50
4.1 Future work ................................................................................................. 50
5 Bibliography 52
List of figures VI
Figure 2.1: Continuum reality-virtuality according to Milgram (1994) (Milgram &
Kishino, 1994) ................................................................................... 5
Figure 2.2: Ivan Sutherland’s HMD (Carmigniani et al.,2011) ..................................... 7
Figure 2.3: Optical see-through system by Azuma (1997) .... Fehler! Textmarke nicht
definiert.
Figure 2.4: Video see-through system by Azuma (1997) ...... Fehler! Textmarke nicht
definiert.
Figure 2.5: Handheld display device by Azuma (1997) ........ Fehler! Textmarke nicht
definiert.
Figure 2.6: Participant in the left are using Tango tablet and participants in the right
are using HoloLens and a surface tablet (Riedlinger, Oppermann,
and Prinz (2019) .............................................................................. 15
Figure 2.7: Assembly task on the right and monitoring task on the left (Wille,
Wischniewski, Scholl, & Laerhoven, 2014) ...................................... 17
Figure 2.8: Static task (left), the helper’s room (center), and dynamic task (right).
(Johnson, Gibson, & Mutlu, February 2015) .................................... 18
Figure 2.9: Augmented Reality Tracking systems (Rabbi & Ullah, 2013) ................. 22
Figure 2.10: Examples of Marker Based Tracking (Rabbi & Ullah, 2013) ................. 23
Figure 2.11: Application domain AR with BIM (Wang, et al., 2012) .......................... 25
Figure 3.1: Demo model from Gamma AR ............................................................... 32
Figure 3.2: Trial model from ARki ............................................................................. 34
Figure 3.3: Trial model from ARki ............................................................................. 34
Figure 3.4: DAQRI application (extracted from DAQRI website
https://daqri.com/partners/) ............................................................. 36
Figure 3.5: Dalux Menu ............................................................................................ 37
Figure 3.6: Dalux BIM viewer .................................................................................... 38
Figure 3.7: Fologram model ...................................................................................... 39
List of figures
List of figures VII
Figure 3.8: Examples of AR Mapper applications ( extracted from the AR Mapper
website : https://www.immotef.com/ar-mapper) .............................. 41
Figure 3.9: Example of SmartReality application(Extracted from :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNYBmkLZmaY) ...................... 42
Figure 3.10: AR user (extract from the website of Visual Vocal) ............................... 43
Figure 3.11: VR user (extract from the website of Visual Vocal) ............................... 44
Figure 3.12: StoryBoard VR (extract from the website of StoryBoard VR:
https://www.artefactgroup.com/case-studies/storyboard-vr/) ........... 45
Figure 3.13: Example of Trimble SiteVision (Extracted
from:https://sitevision.trimble.com/) ................................................. 46
Figure 3.14: Example of Trimble XR10 with HoloLens (Extracted from:
https://mixedreality.trimble.com/) ..................................................... 47
List of tables VIII
List of tables
Table 2-1: Comparing different technique of different type of displays (Carmigniani et
al.,2011) .......................................................................................... 14
Table 2-2: Summarizing both the advantages (+) and disadvantages (-) of HMD and
HHD ................................................................................................ 19
Table 2-3: Summary of the opportunities and challenges of integrating AR with BIM30
Table 3-1: Comparing the application ....................................................................... 48
Abbreviations IX
BIM Building Information Modeling
AR Augmented Reality
VR Virtual Reality
HMD Head-Mounted Display
HHD Handheld Display
CAD Computer Aided Design
CDE Common Data Environment
MR Mixed Reality
HUD Head-Up Display
SAR Spatial Augmented Reality
GNSS Global Navigation Satellite System
Abbreviations
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Motivation
Digitalization in Architecture Engineering Construction (AEC) has revolutionized the
architectural project’s design. The use of intelligent 3D models is becoming a common
practice in design phases to produce digital models. This technical approach goes far
beyond the abilities of conventional Computer-Aided Design (CAD), so the construc-
tion industry calls such modeling Building Information Modeling (BIM) (Borrmann,
König, Koch, & Beetz, 2018). BIM is revolutionizing the way of carrying out a construc-
tion project from start to finish. It is based on an integrated functioning of work teams
and the use of 3D modeling, where all the stakeholders of the project collaborate
(Borrmann, König, Koch, & Beetz, 2018). By integrating three-dimensional models and
allowing various typical analyzes during the construction process, this tool promises
work optimization, especially in terms of costs and time (Borrmann, König, Koch, &
Beetz, 2018). In addition, BIM has a new concept of project management that allows
the different stakeholders to work and exchange around digital models that contain
project information (Abualdenien & Borrmann, 2019).
However, BIM model’s usage is limited only to the design phase (Wang, et al., 2012).
It is essential to link digital to physical work to stay competitive in market. Industrializa-
tion of the construction development necessitates a high level of automation and inte-
gration of information and physical resources. Both design and planning process in
construction industry work with information rather than working with physical resources
(Wang, Truijens, Hou, Wang, & Zhou, 2014).
Construction industry’s actors tend to lean towards implementing established and tried
technologies instead of applying new technological solution like augmented reality
(AR). On the other hand, the need of communication technology and standardization
of information was highlighted since the workers utilize different technological tools and
perhaps dissimilar datasets. Therefore, AR is a great tool to bring virtual information
into the real world and to overcome problems and different challenges that the AEC
industry is facing due to lacking the use of digitization (Wang, Truijens, Hou, Wang, &
Zhou, 2014)
1 Introduction
1 Introduction 2
Azuma, 1997 claims that AR helps the users to combines virtual objects with real ones
so they can coexist in the same space. This technique amplifies reality, instead of en-
tirely replacing it (Gheisari, Goodman, Schmidt, Williams, & Irizarry, 2014) and its ap-
plications are increasingly versatile (Wang, et al., 2012). Indeed, AR is a perfect tool
to help the AEC industry to overcome certain challenges. Possible uses can extend to
all phases of a project, from property development to design, construction and even
maintenance (Wang, et al., 2012). Mobile tools are perfectly suited to the application
of augmented reality since the user can move to any location and superimpose the
virtual on the real object through an integrated camera. (Wang, et al., 2012)
1.2 Research goal and structure
the thesis’ goal is to highlight the opportunities and challenges of integrating AR with
BIM as well as reviewing different AR application for BIM design.
The thesis is divided in the following chapters:
In chapter 2 I review at first the BIM definition. In the second part of chapter 2
I present the definition and the history of augmented reality. Then I review pos-
sible applications of AR in different fields. Next, I explain the technological prin-
ciples behind augmented reality (displays, tracking system, interface). Finally, I
tackle the challenges and the difficulties of using augmented reality systems. In
the last part of the chapter 2 I reveal the opportunities and challenges of inte-
grating AR with BIM by answering to two research question:
1. What are the beneficial effects that AR brings to BIM (RQ1)?
2. What are the limitation and challenges of adopting AR and BIM
at a construction site (RQ2)?
In chapter 3 I will review different AR application for BIM design. Discuss their
benefits as well as the challenges
In chapter 4 I conclude the work and give an overview about the future work.
2 Literature Review 3
2.1 Building Information Modeling
The US National Building Information Modeling Standard defines BIM as follows (NIBS
2012):
‘’Building Information Modeling (BIM) is a digital representation of physical and func-
tional characteristics of a facility. A BIM is a shared knowledge resource for information
about a facility forming a reliable basis for decisions during its life cycle; defined as
existing from earliest conception to demolition. A basic premise of BIM is collaboration
by different stakeholders at different phases of the life cycle of a facility to insert, ex-
tract, update or modify information in the BIM to support and reflect the roles of that
stakeholder’’.
Building Information Modeling is a procedure that uses large databases of information
to characterize almost all qualities and aspects of a structure or system. The infor-
mation preserved in BIM is different than the information retained by traditional design
systems. BIM provides the user with sets of 3D objects, for example, walls, floors,
doors, windows, and ceilings, which can be digitally built up to design a 3D model of a
construction project. In addition, BIM stores vast amounts of regulatory and technical
specifications for various architectural projects. 3D objects in BIM are further con-
nected to a library of semantic data points, such as technical properties, component
type materials, and possible cost ranges, that allow for a fully customizable building
plan. Moreover, BIM allows collaboration between project stakeholders by either allow-
ing collaborative single model workspaces or by sharing updated model information to
stakeholders over the lifetime of a project. BIM is a robust process for design, con-
struction or renovation, building management, even for demolition. (Borrmann, König,
Koch, & Beetz, 2018).
BIM models are more than geometrical representations; therefore, they can be viewed
in many dimensions, from 2D to 6D. The 2D model is no more than a two-dimensional
drawing. The 3D model can be easily explored and manipulated, thus facilitating the
understanding of the relationships between spaces, materials, and the system of a
structure. The 4D model gives temporal information by allowing users to plan jobs and
visualize progress in real-time. The 5D model integrates cost estimations by calculating
2 Literature Review
2 Literature Review 4
the corresponding building budget. Finally, BIM can be extended into nD environment,
including accessibility, logistic, safety, quality, maintenance, acoustics and energy sim-
ulation. (Wang, et al., 2012).
To simplify the enormous and complex workflows associated with BIM implementation,
four levels of BIM, called maturity levels, have been defined (0,1,2 and 3). Level 0 is
characterized by paper drawings or by 2D computerized drawings. Level 1 is a mix of
2D and 3D computerized drawings. In Level 1, the standardized date is shared in a
common environment. Workers publish and update their own data, and non-geometric
data is processed separately. In Level 2, the AEC industry produces its own 3D mod-
els, which they share with other companies and workers using the Common Data En-
vironment (CDE). Here, the goal is to unify all models into a federated model, which
allows for interference and issue detection. Level 3 is based on the full implementation
of BIM and is characterized by the sharing of a single, collaborative model between all
parties. (Borrmann, König, Koch, & Beetz, 2018).
Although BIM has helped to improve the AEC industry, it still has some challenges to
overcome. BIM models contain an enormous amount of information, which can hinder
their implementation. Wang, et al., 2012 claims that BIM is currently only used for pro-
jects’ design phases, and BIM engineers therefore complain about the lack of rele-
vance during on-site work. To transfer BIM models to the construction site the re-
searchers suggested the use of augmented reality (Wang, et al., 2012).
2 Literature Review 5
2.2 Augmented Reality
2.2.1 Terminology
2.2.1.1 Definition
Augmented Reality (AR) is described as a combination of virtual and real environments
by superimposing digital information on the physical world. This virtual interface inter-
acts in real-time with the user and with the physical world and stores real and virtual
elements. Carmigniani et al. (2011) describe AR as an explicit or implicit real-time im-
age of an improved real-world environment achieved by adding information created by
computers.
In 1994, Milgram proposed a taxonomy for mixed reality, illustrated in Figure 2.1
(Milgram & Kishino, 1994). He admits the assumption that there is no clear border
between physical and digital environments, but with the help of a continuum called
mixed reality, it can switch from one world to the next. As shown in figure 2.1, the
concepts of AR and VR are integrated into this continuum and are close to the real
environment and virtual environment, respectively. On the one hand, AR involves a
strong presence of physical reality with a weak integration of virtual reality, whereas,
on the other hand, VR makes a total abstraction for the elements of the real environ-
ment.
Figure 2.1: Continuum reality-virtuality according to Milgram (1994) (Milgram & Kishino, 1994)
Azuma, 1997 defined augmented reality as a system that mixed virtual objects with
real ones so they can coexist in the same space. In addition, he describes that an AR
system should have three features:
Mixture of physical and virtual environments
Interactivity in real-time
Three-dimensional visual registration
Real Environment
Mixed Reality (MR)
Augmented
Reality (AR) Virtual Environment Augmented
Virtuality (AV)
Reality-Virtuality (RV) Continuum
2 Literature Review 6
AR purpose is to optimize the life of the user by delivering digital information not just
of the surrounding environment, but also to some implicit perspectives of an actual-
world related surrounding. Then, live video streaming can be included in AR. Moreover,
AR increases the understanding and connection of the user with the real world.
(Carmigniani, et al., 2010).
AR is not limited to some wireless technology like head-mounted displays (HMD), and
it includes more senses than sight alone. AR systems can engage different senses,
including smell, touch, and hearing (Carmigniani, et al., 2010). This system, therefore,
offers a more interactive experience compared to virtual reality (Azuma R. , 1997).
Today, several experts believe that augmented reality would gain increasing popularity
compared to virtual reality due to its usability on a handheld device (mobile phones,
tablets, and laptops) and its commercial use in several sectors (Carmigniani, et al.,
2010)
2.2.1.2 Historical overview
Augmented reality first appeared in 1950 by Morton Heilig, who is a cinematographer.
He claimed that cinema as an art should be able to pull the audience into the action on
the screen. Continuing with this idea, he created a new prototype in 1962 named Sen-
sorama, which he had proposed in ‘’The Cinema of the Future” in 1955. Then, in 1966,
Ivan Sutherland created the first HMD. Two years later, he developed the prototype of
the Augmented Reality system (Figure 2.2). Next, in 1975, Myron Krueger invented a
video space that enabled user interaction with a virtual object. During the 1980s, the
concept of Augmented Reality was mostly used in a military setting to display virtual
information on aircraft windshields. In 1994, Milgram et al. defined the reality-virtuality
continuum; Milgram interpreted the Augmented Reality to be included in a linear con-
tinuum that goes from real to virtual (Figure 2.1). Three years later (1997), Azuma
conducted a survey of augmented reality, integrating 3D real environments with a 3D
virtual environment in real-time. Then, in 2000, Bruce Thomas introduced a mobile
game based on AR. In 2007 it was expanded to the medical field. After that, more AR
application was created, such as the launch of the Wikitude AR Travel Guide in 2008.
In the current era, it has expanded its operations and has been applied to the commer-
cial, educational, medical, and construction industries, etc. (Carmigniani, et al., 2010)
2 Literature Review 7
Figure 2.2: Ivan Sutherland’s HMD (Carmigniani et al.,2011)
2.2.2 AR Application
There are many possibilities to use Augmented reality in different fields. For example,
in repairs and maintenance, in the military for assisting personal, in medicine, while
preparing surgeries, in Tourism and in games. This signifies the versatile uses of AR
in various fields, including educational and commercial ones.
2.2.2.1 Military
One of the typical application examples of augmented reality used for military purposes
is the Heads-Up Display (HUD). For the pilot’s sight, the see-through display is di-
rected. Along with critical data, the usual view to the pilot is the airspeed, the horizontal
line, and the altitude. As the pilot needs not to look down on the instrumentation of
aircraft for required data, so it is termed as “heads-up.” (Mekni & Lemieux, 2014) The
grounded army uses the Head-Mounted Display (HMD). Through this display, the sol-
dier can have the enemy location and other critical data in line with their sight. Moreo-
ver, HMD is used to train a soldier to make a rapid decision allowing them to participate
in a multitude of the simulated mission. (Mekni & Lemieux, 2014)
2.2.2.2 Medical education
In the education field, AR presents significant advantages for learning and skill acqui-
sition. The practical and visual aspect of this learning allows improving comprehensive
2 Literature Review 8
skills, for example, by allowing students to view an object in all its forms. Augmented
reality will help students to be more active, and it provides a particularly interesting,
playful side that helps to gain their attention and their enthusiasm. (Ramos, Trilles,
Torres-Sospedra, & Perales, 2018).
Augmented reality in medical education helped students to feel more comfortable with
the real clinical environment they are in. AR helps to create an experience transform-
ative learning that allows users to visualize human anatomical structure as they would
in a laboratory room with the corpse. Furthermore, AR helps to simulate many medical
experiences, which would be difficult to simulate (Kamphuis, Barsom, Schijven, &
Christoph, 2014). In this context, Blum, Kleeberger, Bichlmeier, and Navab, 2012 cre-
ated a digital mirror that represents, in 3D dimensions, a virtual human organism. This
system allows a better understanding of the human body.
2.2.2.3 Medical industry
Medical industries use AR, especially in surgery. This technique reduces the risk of
operations as it provides the actualized 3D representations of the patient’s body and
increases the sensory perception of the surgeon. However, there are concerns about
tissue movement while doing surgery. Furthermore, With the AR technology, the doctor
can easily explain to the patient about complicated medical conditions through visual-
izations (Carmigniani, et al., 2010). Bichlmeier, Wimmer, Heining, and Navab, 2007
built an AR simulation framework on virtual anatomy through the real skin, utilizing
polygonal surface models to allow for time viewing.
2.2.2.4 Tourism
Tourism and sightseeing industries make an extensive use of Augmented Reality, as
it can bring life to displays through augmentation. AR has enhanced the sightseeing
industry in the real outer world. Using a camera-enabled smartphone, tourists can visit
historic sites and see facts and figures presented as an overlay on their live screen
(Mekni & Lemieux, 2014). Fritz, Susperregui, & and Linaza, 2005 created a see-
through video system called PRISMA. It is the combination of binoculars and AR sys-
tems. PRISMA was developed to help the visitors to retrieve personalized and interac-
tive multimodal details on the landmarks and the historic city buildings. Moreover,
Marimon, et al., 2010 developed a Mobil device application called MobilAR. Tourists
2 Literature Review 9
will now be able to see a 3D model of historic Monuments as they were in the past.
This allows users to experience new things rather than reading and viewing photos.
2.2.2.5 Edutainment
Edutainment in another field that uses AR. Edutainment is a new term created in the
60s by Bob Heyman that explain the connection and positive relationship between the
field of education and entertainment. It helps the learner to develop their skills faster
and in an enjoyable way. For example, Kaufmann, in 2004, created an application to
teach mathematics and geometry called construct3D. Another application called
Dimexian was developed to teach algebra games and VR-ENGAGE to teach geogra-
phy (Juan, Canu, & Giménez, 2008). In the Technical University of Valencia, Juan,
Canu, & Giménez, 2008 conducted a study about integrating games in education using
AR applications for children. This application is based on a storytelling about the Lion
King, in which the children can control how to involve the story and its ends. The chil-
dren visualized the game using an HMD and a monitor. The tale had eight different
endings, and It consisted of a lion video that permits the kid to follow a changed Lion
King. As a result, they are almost no difference in using both visualizations devices.
Carmen Juan did another study in 2009 on the same topic, but this time is about finding
and learning about different exotic animals in amusement and an enjoyable way and
with the help of AR system that utilize a magnet and tangible cubes and compared it
to the real game. Twenty adult participants participate in this study. As a result, the
adults liked the AR game more than the real game.
2.2.2.6 Entertainment
Games industries use Augmented reality to make it more real. Unlike Virtual reality
(VR), that amplifies the game experience by offering the player a 360-degree vision
thanks to a close glass. AR superimposes the virtual image in the environment in a
natural way. Integrating AR in games will not only help the player to experience a real
adventure in an amusement way but encourage young people to be active. The most
popular game that uses AR is Pokemon go; it came in July 2016. It is a mobile appli-
cation that combines AR and geolocalization which helps for the search and the catch
of Pokemons by going outside in the street, parks, etc. (Ramos, Trilles, Torres-
Sospedra, & Perales, 2018)
2.2.2.7 Advertising
2 Literature Review 10
Advertising companies use augmented reality to insert a 3D element in a real environ-
ment. Advertising in automotive is the first to use augmented reality. Some car com-
panies use a unique flyer that is recognized by webcams, then a 3D image of the ad-
vertised car is shown on screen AR, which immerses the consumer in the universe of
a brand. It offers a memorable and unique sense of belonging. for example, some
advertising companies allows the consumer to view the product at home or even try it
virtually. (Mekni & Lemieux, 2014). Some researchers of the Institute of Industrial Tech-
nologies and Automation (ITIA) of the National Council of Research (CNR) in Milan
created a system to try shoes virtually. An interactive mirror that allows to try on shoes
virtually by standing in front of it without having to undress. The user can as well change
color, model, etc., depending on the availability of the model on the store. (Carmigniani,
et al., 2010)
2.2.3 Technological principals
2.2.3.1 AR displays
Augmented Reality (AR) displays make a clear border between the consumer and the
environment—a private and mobile window that fully incorporates real and virtual data
such that the virtual world spatially overlay on the actual world. AR display adapts light
by visual means to provide a consumer with optical (figurative or graphic) data overlay
on spaces, buildings, objects, or individuals. There are three significant displays: head-
mounted display, handheld display, and spatial display.
a) Head-Mounted Display (HMD)
Head-Mounted Displays (HMD) is a viewing system placed on the head that puts all
views, physical and digital in the user’s world view. Two sorts of HMDs exist :
.Optical-See-Through (OST) devices provide a direct view of the real environ-
ment on which the virtual content is overprinted (Figure 2.3). Here, virtual and
real are therefore combined optically via a semi-transparent mirror.
Video-see-through offers an indirect view of the real environment. It is seen
through two cameras arranged on the headset and the virtual world being digi-
tally superimposed on the video signal before being presented to the user via
the Video see-through displays (Figure 2.4). (Carmigniani, et al., 2010)
2 Literature Review 11
Figure 2.3: Optical see-through system by Azuma
(1997)
Figure 2.4: Video see-through system by Azuma
(1997)
b) Handheld Display (HHD)
Handheld displays use small processing gadgets with a showcase that the client can
grasp (Figure 2.5). They utilize video-transparent procedures to superimpose illustra-
tions onto the genuine condition and utilize sensors, e.g., advanced compasses and
GPS units, fiducial marker frameworks (ARToolKit), and PC vision techniques (SLAM).
Smartphones, personal digital assistants (PDAs), and tablet PCs are three handheld
display types. Smartphones are relatively well suited to augmented reality, as they are
equipped with GPS, digital compass, a video camera, and communication devices.
However, smartphones have limited computing power. Tablet PCs, unlike
smartphones, have the necessary computing power for any type of augmented reality
2 Literature Review 12
Figure 2.5: Handheld display device by Azuma (1997)
application, if they are equipped with the equipment adequate. However, it is difficult
to hold the tablet with one. Moreover, their size and weight do not allow prolonged use.
Finally, PDA’s are like a smartphone, but with the release of Androids and iPhones,
they are becoming less used (Carmigniani, et al., 2010)
c) Spatial Display
Spatial Augmented Reality (SAR) display systems are included within the space in
which the user evolves. This system offers the possibility of using several displays
devices and allows multiple users to perceive the same increase within a physical en-
vironment. Spatial reality separates most of the innovation from the client and incorpo-
rates it into the surrounding environment. The spatial display can be divided into three
types. First, Video-see through displays utilizes traditional monitors like screens. This
type of display is easily integrated into the design of a SAR. Moreover, video monitors
are affordable and allow anyone to do their own SAR installation. In addition, the use
of mobiles is not necessary for this kind of display. Second, optical see-through dis-
plays which produce photos related to the real environment. Transparent screens, pla-
nar or curved mirror beam splitters, or optical holograms are examples of SAR dis-
play. Finally, Projector-based spatial displays, which are based on the concept of direct
augmentation of real-world objects. A projector fixed in the environment is used and
presents the digital information on the objects which are increased. (Carmigniani, et
al., 2010)
2 Literature Review 13
d) Conclusion
All these three displays are different from each other. Handheld displays provide an
interface only to one user and small-scale display. The head-mounted display provides
a display to every single individual separately, but the resolution of the scene or movie
is better than the handheld displays of augmented reality. However, spatial displays
are different from both. They provide a direct interface to the users collectively. Every
single individual does not need to use the system. It offers high resolution and better-
quality displays to users than the other two types. (Table 2-1) (Carmigniani et al.,2011)
2 Literature Review 14
Types of dis-
plays tech-
niques
HMD Handheld Spatial
Video-see-
through
Optical-see-
through
Video-see-through Video-
see-
through
Optical-
see-
through
Direct
Augmen-
tation Types of
Displays
HMD Handhel
d
Advantages -Complete
visualiza-
tion control
-Possible
synchroni-
zation of the
virtual and
real envi-
ronment
-Employs a
half-silver
mirror tech-
nology
-more natu-
ral percep-
tion of the
real envi-
ronment
-Portable
-wide-
spread,
-Powerful
CPU
-camera
-accel-
erometer
-GPS
-solid-
state com-
pass
-Portable
-Power-
ful CPU
-Camera
-Accel-
erometer
-GPS
-Solid
state
compass
-More
powerful
-Cost effi-
cient
-Can be
adopted
using off-
the-shelf
hardware
compo-
nents and
standard
PC equip-
ment
-More
natural
percep-
tion of
the real
envi-
ron-
ment
-Displays
directly
onto
physical
objects’
surfaces
Disad-
vantages
-Requires
user to wear
cameras on
his/her
head
-Requires
processing
of cameras
video
stream
-Unnatural
perception
of the real
environ-
ment
-Time lag
-Jittering of
the virtual
image
-Small dis-
play
-Becom-
ing less
wide-
spread
-Small
display
-More
expen-
sive and
heavy
-do not
support
mobile
system
-Do not
support
mobile
system
-Not user
depend-
ent: Eve-
rybody
sees the
same
thing (in
some
cases this
disad-
vantage
can also
be con-
sidered to
be an ad-
vantage)
Table 2-1: Comparing technologies of different types of displays (Carmigniani et al.,2011)
2 Literature Review 15
2.2.3.2 HMD vs. HHD devices
a) Study 1: Microsoft HoloLens vs. Google Tango tablets
Riedlinger, Leif, & Prinz, 2019 conducted a study to compare Google Tango tablets
with Microsoft HoloLens. The researchers divided the study into two tasks, one for the
interior design and the other for Building maintenance.
The researchers choose 16 participants from different academic levels (Students, Pro-
fessors, and research assistants), including two architects. These participants are di-
vided into groups of two, each of them should complete four tasks (two tasks with
HoloLens and surface tablet, and two with Tango tablet). In the end, each participant
will answer questionnaires about the devices.
For the first part, the Participant A uses the tablet by creating two different interior
design and presenting it to participant B. Then A had to sell one of them to B. After
that, A chooses a place at the ceiling to build something and B checks with the tablet
if that is possible. In the end, they answer the tablets questionnaire. For the second
part, B wears smart glasses to check if the interior design fit the room with the aid from
participant A that follows him with a surface tablet. After that, B will build something on
the wall and A checks with the Microsoft HoloLens if it is possible. In the end, partici-
pants evaluate HoloLens and compare both devices. (Figure 2.6)
Figure 2.6: Participant in the left are using Tango tablet and participants in the right are using Ho-
loLens and a surface tablet (Riedlinger, Oppermann, and Prinz (2019)
The results show that the participants favored the tango on HoloLens:
For the interior Planning part, Tango had received the maximal rating (1.0), while Ho-
loLens had an inferior result (2.5). According to the participants, the tablet is more
practical in the interior design than the smart-glasses. HoloLens has two significant
problems: the first one, the connection lagged for four seconds between HoloLens and
2 Literature Review 16
the Surface tablet. The second one, the use of the Surface tablet, is limited; it was like
a Mirror.
For the Building maintenance part, Tango still has a better rate (1.875) then the Ho-
loLens (2.375), but the results still lower than the interior planning part. The participants
interpreted that there is a difficulty in measuring a plan in 3D models, sometimes there
is a missing caption or additional information on the 3D design. Moreover, using the
tablets is not comfortable for the arm, especially when it is pointed to the ceiling, and
wearing HoloLens give only a small field of view.
b) Study 2: Google Glass vs. Tablet PC
Wille, Wischniewski, Scholl, & Laerhoven, 2014 compared a guidance system using
Google Glass and Tablet PC for assembling tasks. Twenty adults aged between 18-
67 years participated in this study using the head-mounted displays (HMDs), and ten
adults aged between 21-59 years used the handheld display. The researcher divided
the study into two tasks. Each participant had to perform the two tasks at the same
time, as quickly and precisely as possible.
On the one hand, participants were given a toy car base on the Lego Technik to as-
semble, where they were given step by step graphic instructions by researchers. The
difficulty of the task was increased by adding several construction bricks in every step.
Then, the performance was measured by the number of the lego assembled.
On the other hand, the participants were required to observe and note the monitoring
task. The assembled slides in the step were presented parallel to this task. Three bars
changed their length every 94.45 seconds and changed color between red and blue
every 106.44 seconds (Figure 2.7). Every time the longest bar position changed, the
user of Google glass said, “bar changed,” and the user of the tablet double tapped on
the screen.
2 Literature Review 17
Figure 2.7: Assembly task on the right and monitoring task on the left (Wille, Wischniewski, Scholl, &
Laerhoven, 2014)
As a result, there is no significant difference between the two devices. However, the
participants using the tablets have a higher number of processed slides than the one
using Google Glass. Head-mounted displays (HMDs) are theoretically perfect for work-
ers as it allows the worker to do manual tasks while using the device. Though, while
using this device, participants experienced a higher level of mental fatigue, and they
had some visibility problems after continuously using it for multiple hours.
c) Study 3: Google Glass vs. Google Nexus 7 tablet
Johnson, Gibson, & Mutlu, February 2015 carried out extensive research on comparing
Google Glass with Google nexus 7 tablet. In this study, 66 participants were selected
to build a toy car using either an HMD or Handheld device. The work done in pairs,
one participant took the role of ‘’ the worker’’ to do all construction work guided and
assisted by the other participant ‘’ the helper’’, who has the detailed plan of the car.
The worker used either of the two devices, Google glass or Google Nexus 7 tablet, for
this experiment, whereas the helper had to use a computer that had a camera and
microphone to make it easier for him to communicate with the worker mentioned
above.
Two tasks were randomly given: a dynamic task (a high level of mobility) and a static
task (a lower level of mobility). For the static part, the elements required to construct
the entity were distributed into three different groups located at the worker’s desktop.
But, three different desktops were used for the dynamic part of the task, and the im-
portant elements in this part were placed on them (Figure 2.8). The worker was only
permitted to transfer pieces from the desktop if the elements were already attached or
else if only one piece was being carried by the worker. The researcher focused on this
2 Literature Review 18
study on collaborative behavior, collaborative performance, and collaborative percep-
tions.
Figure 2.8: Static task (left), the helper’s room (center), and dynamic task (right). (Johnson, Gibson, &
Mutlu, February 2015)
As a result, the use of Google Glass in the dynamic part allowed the helper to give
more frequent commands and provide support, leading to finishing the task faster. In
the static part, the helper had a higher collaboration with the worker, when the last uses
the tablets instead of the HMD, due to the wide view that the tablet can offer. The use
of tablets aided to transfer the information that was visually sophisticated. As a result
of this, a variation was observed in the views of helpers and workers about the devices
and how they devoted their success.
2 Literature Review 19
d) Conclusion
According to the previous studies, both devices have advantages and disadvantages
(see the table 2-2 below):
Head-Mounted Display Handheld devices
Previous
studies
+Combination of virtual and real world
+More enjoyable
+More comfortable
+natural view-point selection
- heavy on the eye
- Small wide angle of view
-complicated GUI interaction with gesture
and clicking
-Mental fatigue
-Energy problem (the device gets warm
fast)
+easier to use
+better field of view
+more comfortable to share
with other
+Less distracting
+ The ability to point at the
screen
-Display size
-More arm works
-Tracking stability
-less immersive
Table 2-2: Summarizing both the advantages (+) and disadvantages (-) of HMD and HHD
2.2.3.3 AR interface
AR interface permit to the users to interact with digital information using the appropriate
techniques. AR interfaces types are Tangible interface, Collaborative interface, Hybrid
interface, and Multimodal interface
a) Tangible Interface AR
The development of various tangible AR interfaces are supported by the invention of
novel sensing and display development. Using surfaces such as tables and walls,
these systems offer a tangible correspondence between the input and the projection
of the technological surface. Moreover, they allow a direct interaction of the user with
the information by touch and hand gesture (Mistry, Maes, & Chang, 2009). An example
of a tangible AR interface is Oblon’s g-speak system. This system is a touch-independ-
ent collaborative computing program supporting a wide range of freehand gestures.
2 Literature Review 20
Carmigniani, et al., 2010 found that tangible interfaces mainly advocate for direct rela-
tionships with the real enviroment through the exploitation of the real, corporeal entities
and instruments. VOMAR is a critical example of tangible AR interface systems estab-
lished by Kato et al. VOMAR enables the individual to select as well as reshuffle the
furniture within AR spacing by use of a real physical paddle. (Carmigniani, et al., 2010).
b) Collaborative Interface AR
Being able to collaborate remotely with other people can provide valuable capabilities
to perform tasks that need multiple users. In addition, Augmented reality technologies
are interesting tools for developing new types of applications offering more natural in-
teractions and possibilities of perception compared to conventional systems. A group
of researchers used the AR collaborative application on a tennis game. Two players
used their phone camera by pointing them to the ARToolkit markers. Then they saw a
virtual tennis stadium overlaid on the actual world. The players hit each other virtual
balls with the use of their phones. Every time the virtual ball hit the phone, the players
could hear a sound and feel a vibration (Zhou, Duh, & Billinghurst, September 2008).
c) Hybrid Interface AR
Hybrid AR interfaces integrate different but complementary interfaces into a single sys-
tem. These interfaces interact via a broad spectrum of interaction devices. As a result,
they offer a flexible program for unplanned daily interactions. (Carmigniani, et al., 2010)
Emmie is an example of a hybrid user interface. It helps the user to share 3D virtual
space and to manipulate virtual items using computers, displays, and devices. It helps
to complement and exchange information between different displays (Zhou, Duh, &
Billinghurst, September 2008).
d) Multimodal Interface AR
The multimodal interface combines several methods of communication between the
user and the machine, such as hand gesture, speech, gaze, or touch. Irawati, Green,
Billinghurst, Duenser, & Ko, 2006 have investigated the scheme then evaluated the
augmented multimodal interface applying to both speech and paddle gestures. The
interface depicted some interaction of visual materials in the actual environments of
the world and the virtual environments. The study focuses on the assessment of the
effectiveness of multimodal interaction/interface within the augmented reality environ-
ment. Media Room was the first multimodal interface that combined speech and ges-
2 Literature Review 21
ture recognition (Carmigniani, et al., 2010). The Media Room was importantly advo-
cated for the interaction of the users and computers by the use of voices, gestures, and
sight. In the same context, (Irawati, Green, Billinghurst, Duenser, & Ko, 2006) have
found that multimodal interfaces are intuitive since the strength of the voice input is
complimenting the restrictions of gesture interaction and vice-versa. The speech inter-
faces suitably fit into the descriptive approach, and gestural communication is sufficient
for the undeviating influence of objects (Zhou, Duh, & Billinghurst, September 2008).
Therefore, when they are applied together, combined speech, as well as gesture input,
they create a more robust interface.
2.2.3.4 Augmented Reality Tracking systems
AR needs accurate position as well as orientation tracking systems to align and register
digital data with the real world that are supposed to be annotated. Azuma R., 1997
noted that the outdoor augmented reality Systems should track precisely and make
decisions accordingly. A survey of different tracking techniques by Rabbi & Ullah, 2013
reveals that a large amount of work has been done to find out viable and most efficient
tracking mechanisms. These are various tracking techniques used in AR, including
optical tracking system, sensor-based tracking, magnetic tracking, inertial tracking,
acoustic tracking, hybrid tracking, vision-based tracking, maker-based tracking, and
markerless tracking, etc. (Figure 2.9) (Rabbi & Ullah, 2013)
Tracking
Augmented Reality Tracking
Sensor Based Tracking Vision Based Tracking Hybride Tracking
Optical Sensor
Tracking
Inertial Sensor
Tracking
Magnetic Sensor
Tracking
Acoustic Sensor
Tracking
Hybrid Sensor
Tracking
Marker Based Tracking Markless Tracking
2 Literature Review 22
Figure 2.9: Augmented Reality Tracking systems (Rabbi & Ullah, 2013)
a) Sensor-Based Tracking
There are many types of Sensor-based tracking, such as optical, magnetic, inertial,
acoustic, and hybrid sensors (Rabbi and Ullah,2013). The selection of the sensor used
depends on various considerations such as accuracy, calibrations, expensiveness,
range, resolutions, and environmental conditions like temperature and pressure. For
example, magnetic sensors are used because of their high update rate and light. How-
ever, accuracy can easily be disabled due to the presence of a Metall. (DiVerdi and
Hollerer, 2007).
Ullah, 2011 have studied the optical tracking system in detail. In this type of sensing,
visible light or infrared radiations are employed to sense the object position. It was
noted that using one camera provides a two-dimensional view, while two or more cam-
eras give a three-dimensional view of the target object. The cameras are installed at
varying angles. The position of the object is determined by the coordinates of these
cameras and helps in the process of decision making.
Another example is the inertial sensor-based tracking systems. In this type of tracking,
a mechanical gyroscope or an accelerometer is used and the principal of conservation
of the angular momentum is put to work. For example, changes in position are calcu-
lated through a double integration of productions of the accelerometers using their
acknowledged alignments (Rabbi & Ullah, 2013). In the acoustic tracking system,
Ullah, 2011 noted that the ultrasound transmitter and sound sensor are employed. The
time taken by the sound from the object to the sensor is measured, and the position is
calculated by them.
Hybrid tracking technique is a combination of different sensors to develop hybrid sen-
sor tracking system. For instance, the inertial and magnetic tracking system can be
combined in one tracking system (DiVerdi & Hoellerer, 2007). In this system, magnetic
monitoring has been applied to offer a reliable approximation of both position and ori-
entation, which is manipulated in real-time by optical tracking. These approximations
lead to a faster and dependable tracking system compared to the optical tracker and
the magnetic tracker. Rabbi & Ullah, 2013 claim that AR application computer vision in
2 Literature Review 23
standalone cannot offer firm tracking solutions. As a result, hybrid methods have been
created, combining various sensing technologies.
b) Vision-Based Tracking
Zhou, Duh, & Billinghurst, September 2008 have noted that vision-based tracking is
widely popular in today’s industry. Vision-based tracking uses the vision methods of
the computing device to measure the position of the object. It can be divided into
marker-based tracking and markerless tracking. Papagiannakis, Singh, & Magnenat-
Thalmann, 2008 have noted marker base tracking are widely used in AR. These mark-
ers are black and white and consist of a simple pattern surrounded by a black border
(Fig 2.10). A virtual object can be inserted into this repository local then projected on
the display screen according to the user field of view. The markers must, however, be
presented at all times in the field view of the camera. Vision markerless-based tracking
is a visual tracking algorithm providing realistic real-time camera tracking based on a
number of metho such as edge detection, planar strategies, and natural feature detec-
tion. However, markless tracking system demands a large amount of power to process,
thus producing challenges on the additional augmented reality rendering activities
(DiVerdi & Hoellerer, 2007)
Figure 2.10: Examples of Marker Based Tracking (Rabbi & Ullah, 2013)
c) Hybrid Tracking System
Combining several sensing and tracking techniques, some researchers suggested a
hybrid tracking system that is more helpful in obtaining accurate and precise results.
Azuma, et al., 1998, emphasized that out of a large number of tracking techniques, not
a single technique can give a complete solution. The better idea is to use a hybrid
tracking technique to ensure the efficiency of the overall tracking system. For example,
combining inertial sensor with vision based to obtain a hybrid system. Inertial sensor
track stereo images and a camera orientation to create a reliable tracking device, while
the vision-based is utilized to measure the location and the orientation of the camera
by tracking markers in the real world. (Rabbi & Ullah, 2013)
2.2.3.5 Augmented Reality Challenges
2 Literature Review 24
Aside from the enormous potential of AR technologies, there are some challenges that
the AR system still needs to overcome. Several scholars studied the problems associ-
ated with Augmented Reality. As stated by (Rabbi & Ullah, 2013), five challenges aug-
mented reality systems need to overcome:
Performance challenges: Consist of real-time computing, reacting, and pro-
gressing with the change of real-world environment.
Alignment challenges: AR systems should permanently align the virtual ob-
ject on the real object. It should know the user’s location and orientation to ad-
just the information displayed according to the field of view. Technically align-
ment problems lead to registration problems and tracking problems. A tracking
system with a lack of precision induces an alignment instability of the virtual on
the real object.
Interaction challenges: represents the user’s interaction simultaneously, with
real and virtual objects. The interaction adopts several interfaces that could be
tangible, acoustic, gaze, haptic, or text-based. It permits the user to interact
with digital objects; this can lead to different interaction problems.
Mobility challenges: The portability of Augmented Reality systems represent
one of the mobility challenges. As being small and light, these systems could
be used anywhere. Thus, being portable outside a controlled environment
characterize the best Augmented Reality systems.
Visualization Challenges: Current AR Display struggle from several prob-
lems, for example, resolution, field of view, contrast, and brightness. Addition-
ally, AR devices suffer from poor occlusion. it is defined as the “process which
determines which surface or its part are not visible from a certain viewpoint.”
Therefore, virtual objects can have a realistic view by having a similar occlu-
sion as the real object. Moreover, real and virtual objects should have the
same illumination.
Apart from these challenges, Mekni & Lemieux, 2014, and Papagiannakis, Singh,
& Magnenat-Thalmann, 2008 stated that social acceptance and social privacy
should also be taken into consideration when it comes to the growth of AR applica-
tion in a different field.
2 Literature Review 25
2.2.4 Integrating Augmented Reality with Building Information Modeling
2.2.4.1 AR and BIM
Integrating AR with BIM has helped the Architecture Engineering Construction (AEC)
industry to plan projects more efficiently and effectively. The integration is examined in
different scientific studies relevant to engineering, construction architecture, inspec-
tions, construction and maintenance, training and education (Wang, et al., 2012)
Figure 2.11: Application domain AR with BIM (Wang, et al., 2012)
Wang, et al., 2012 conducted a study about mixing AR with BIM. They examined how
to integrate AR with BIM to visualize each construction task by giving it a physical
context. According to their study, although BIM aids the design coordination by improv-
ing its efficiency and making it more effective, it fails to calculate uncertainty that is
related to changes in design and rework. This situation prevails during construction,
especially for complex projects (Wang, et al., 2012). The study further suggests that
AR and BIM can give contractors a complete three-dimensional (3-D) interactive solid
model, providing a visual understanding of the design’s details (Wang, et al., 2012).
Augmented Reality in BIM can present the data on-site, which gives a real-time dy-
namic and active planning environment for site managers. Moreover, the information
in AR provides on-site workers with a better understanding of the building sequencing
(Wang, et al., 2012).
Areas
Inspections
Training and Education
Architecture
Engineering Construction and
Maintenance
BIM and AR
Facility Management
2 Literature Review 26
Wang, Truijens, Hou, Wang, & Zhou, 2014 conducted an additional study about the
use of AR in the construction of a liquefied natural gas (LNG) industry plant. The re-
searchers discussed the requirement of a structured methodology for entirely incorpo-
rating AR technology in BIM. BIM-based navigation technology, along with AR, can be
used to find out the exact location of a component’s presence in a construction site or
a warehouse (Wang, Truijens, Hou, Wang, & Zhou, 2014). AR-based visualization of
information in BIM gives an improved and better understanding of on-site work, which
ultimately leads to increased productivity. Furthermore, the use of the AR-based on-
site assembly in BIM can help workers efficiently recognizing the interdependency of
every installation stage. This, in turn, minimizes the errors and rework that result by
using the wrong component, installation sequence, or installation path (Wang, Truijens,
Hou, Wang, & Zhou, 2014). The study suggests that BIM must be information critical,
context-aware, and intellectual for it to be integrated with Augmented Reality on-site in
a better way (Wang, Truijens, Hou, Wang, & Zhou, 2014). Their study lacks the use of
4D and 5D in BIM + AR in the construction of the LNG plant.
Architectural visualization is used in balancing constraints and requirements to make
the interactions between the owners and designers flow easily (Abualdenien & Borr-
mann, 2020). Wang, Wang, Shou, & Xu, 2014 conducted a study on the use of BIM
and AR for architectural visualization. The researchers stated that traditional practice
of architectural visualization, like static pictures or three-dimensional scale models, is
tedious, extensive, and time-consuming (Wang, Wang, Shou, & Xu, 2014). Moreover,
2D and 3D models are expensive and are not adaptable as one would have to do all
the work manually to make minor changes. The 3D scale model does not give any
practical guide to help in the construction but is only used in providing the architectural
appearance of the structure (Wang, Wang, Shou, & Xu, 2014). However, BIM and AR
are a system of integration that provides a further intuitive and immersive environment
that alleviates the stakeholders’ mental burden (Wang, Wang, Shou, & Xu, 2014).
BAAVS (BIM and AR for Architectural Visualization System) improves work productiv-
ity, reduces its production cost and provides an improved level of architectural visuali-
zation. It allows the designers to place a digital building scheme in a real environment.
The users can get a unique experience, which lets the property sellers efficiently and
professionally communicate with their customers (Wang, Wang, Shou, & Xu, 2014).
Although this system is quite efficient, it still has some drawbacks that make it less
2 Literature Review 27
practical for use. Creating augmented reality scenes, updating information, and con-
verting the texture is a time-consuming, and laborious (Wang, Wang, Shou, & Xu,
2014)
Office managers are required, on a regular basis, to connect physical articles to data-
base information. Therefore, AR makes a decent method to support them with their
normal tasks, as their live perspective on space could further be enhanced by the da-
tabase information they need and all in one interface (Gheisari & Irizarry, 2016).
Gheisari , Goodman, Schmidt, Williams, & Irizarry, 2014 have developed a conceptual
framework to enable maintenance workers to conduct routine on-site research, incor-
porating models of information and realistic indicators for AR-related maintenance as-
sistance.
Furthermore, Koch, Neges, König, & Abramovici, 2014 integrated the innovative meth-
ods of BIM, including Augmented Reality (AR), which has provided facility administra-
tors an accessible and easy way to communicate the information they need from BIM
models. A detailed and thorough BIM system that integrates the needed information
along with a 3D structure of overall items in the facility possibly will be used as a server,
which is combined with an Augmented Reality solution to include an immersive intel-
lectual atmosphere for facility administrators.
Williams, Gheisari, Chen, & Irizarry, 2015 developed a Mobile Augmented Reality
(MAR) application and integrated with BIM called BIM2MAR. As reported by the re-
searchers, integrating BIM with a MAR system would be a “transparent window” that
will offer the required information to the system managers or the target users to perform
their tasks successfully. To work, there are several steps to be followed. The first re-
quirement for this system is to generate geographic location and properties of the tar-
get objects, which can later be used to define the location of the user. Then, to utilize
BIM in a MAR, a couple of exchange formats are used to discrete geometry and data
property sets. However, the idea of implementing such a model completely still faces
a few challenges, and there is still room for improvement. As this study suggests that
once an entirely automated BIM2MAR system is configured, the system will automati-
cally use the instantaneous information and its results produced to update the changes
made in the Building Information Model. (Williams, Gheisari, Chen, & Irizarry, 2015)
2 Literature Review 28
2.2.4.2 Challenges of Integrating AR with BIM
A survey of previous papers reveals that some pertinent issues tend to be a major
stumbling block in the integration of AR with BIM. These issues can be categorized as
technical, operational, material, and logistics challenges.
As for the technical challenges, an issue was encountered by almost all the experi-
ments and pilot studies while integrating AR with BIM was the drift problem. As men-
tioned by Williams, Gheisari, Chen, & Irizarry, 2015, the drift appears as the result of a
misalignment of the virtual augmentation from the real object. Resultantly, the users
do not trust the measurements taken by AR and tend to take their own set of meas-
urement values to analyze. In the same study, they found that the subjects were lean-
ing back from their standing place to observe the augmented information. Secondly,
the results were found based on partial processing of the information, beginning from
the color of the target to their geometric properties. It was also noted that after a little
acquaintance with the apparatus, the users were able to translate the differences in
the values that were arisen due to drift.
As for the material challenges, it was seen that the inaccuracies of measurement are
the result of the use of consumer-grade materials in the construction of accelerometers
and gyroscopes along with other instruments. Williams, Gheisari, & Irizarry, 2014 high-
lighted a difference of several centimeters when these materials are used. To rectify
this error, real-time measurements are taken, and the values are fed to CAD, which is
a long and time-consuming process.
Williams, Gheisari, Chen, & Irizarry, 2015 have studied BIM2MAR workflow implemen-
tation. They found that this implantation poses many technical and logistical problems
that are needed to be addressed. For one, BIM is not taken as a comprehensive, stand-
ard package with all the solutions available for the construction industry. Instead, it is
only considered as the solution for specific problems and is used at certain phases of
the construction project. For other phases, the practitioners prefer other tools like CAD.
The utilization of BIM promises to reduce measurement mistakes and so, it must be
available in the form of a standard package for all phases. If BIM is improved in such
a way to compete with other tools as well, its applications will give birth to more inno-
vations in the AEC industry. Two, the alignment of a virtual camera and a real camera
is not accurate when it comes to the use of BIM. If these problems are solved, the
2 Literature Review 29
integration of AR with BIM can go hand in hand for a long time, and phenomenal pro-
gress will be noticed.
Not only this, but Williams, Gheisari, Chen, & Irizarry, 2015 also noted that further re-
search is necessary to be focused on the design requirements for the application of
AR in AECO. More efforts is required to make the system more realistic and competi-
tive in the individual stages of the building cycle.
As for operational challenges, Williams, Gheisari, & Irizarry, 2014 have found that the
BIM software is quite different as compared to other construction management soft-
ware already used by the construction managers. Resultantly, they face certain diffi-
culties in recording and assigning the routine tasks for the team. Moreover, there is no
facility to customize the software as per the practices of the facility managers in the
construction industry. These limitations in the software are because of the lack of family
structure in Revit which is the user-oriented software of the BIM.
2.2.5 Conclusion
BIM technology has led the AEC industry to digitalization. It provides a 3D model rep-
resentation, containing all the elements of the projects and shares platform for infor-
mation exchange and communication between projects. Moreover, BIM technology
has reduced the reputation of bad service, poor quality, delivery delay, and cost over-
run that the construction industry obtains.
However, BIM technologies are only used in the design phase. The operational and
integration of information development in BIM during design with construction site is
challenging. With AR entering the AEC industry, it will help them to overcome these
challenges. This is because AR has proven its efficacy and efficiency in other domains,
e.g., military, medicine, advertising, tourism, entertainment, etc.
Based on the findings mentioned above, two main research questions (RQ) are an-
swered in the table below.
What are the beneficial effects that AR brings to BIM (RQ1)?
What are the limitation and challenges of adopting AR and BIM at a con-
struction site (RQ2)?
2 Literature Review 30
RQ1 RQ2
-Real-time visualization of the design
(Wang, et al., 2012) (Wang, Truijens,
Hou, Wang, & Zhou, 2014)
-Misalignment virtual object with a real
object.
(Williams, Gheisari, Chen, & Irizarry,
2015)
-Improve understanding of the concept
(Wang, Wang, Shou, & Xu, 2014)
(Wang, Truijens, Hou, Wang, and Zhou,
2014)
-Acceptance
(Williams, Gheisari, & Irizarry, 2014)
-Improve communication
(Wang, Wang, Zhou, and Xu, 2014)
-Weak tracking system
(Wang, Wang, Shou, & Xu, 2014)
-Cost reduction
(Wang, Wang, Shou, & Xu, 2014)
(Wang, Truijens, Hou, Wang, & Zhou,
2014)
-Lack of powerful AR device
(Wang, Wang, Shou, & Xu, 2014)
-increase productivity
(Wang, Wang, Shou, & Xu, 2014)
-Requires engagement of the entire
working team
(Williams, Gheisari, & Irizarry, 2014)
-Reduce the number of errors and flaws
(Wang, Truijens, Hou, Wang, & Zhou,
2014)
-Lack of standardization of information
and communication technology (ICT)
tools
(Wang, Truijens, Hou, Wang, & Zhou,
2014)
Table 2-3: Summary of the opportunities and challenges of integrating AR with BIM
3 Market Analysis 31
In this chapter, several AR and BIM applications are reviewed. I will highlight the ap-
plication features, challenges, and limitations. Every application is tested with an iOS
device (iPhone XS) in 20cm² room.
3.1 Gamma AR
Gamma AR is an application that uses AR technology to overlay 3D models using
smartphones or tablets for construction industry. It helps the users to compare the real
work with the planning information contained in the project. Moreover, Gamma AR
connects the construction site and the office via a portal. This platform enables the
user to access any annotation, photos, issues, reports at any time. Gamma AR fea-
tures include:
Avoid errors.
Monitor the progress.
Precise commentaries on the object with audio registration or with writing as
well as taking pictures.
Avoid interpreting the 2D plan.
Combine multiple models.
Tabletop presentation.
Connecting the construction site and the office via a portal.
Comments:
Gamma AR provides a trial period with a demo model as illustrated in the Figure below.
(Figure 3.1)
3 Market Analysis
3 Market Analysis 32
Figure 3.1: Demo model from Gamma AR
3 Market Analysis 33
3.2 ARki
Sarah Fikouhi founded the design studio Darf Design in 2012. The studio combines
designers, engineers, and developers, all working together to create innovative AR
experience. The company has succeeded to create AR applications in a different field,
such as gaming and architectural industries. For example, ARki is an AR visualization
for architecture models. It allows the architects to create mixed-reality visualizations
and produce engaging presentations that can better communicate the design process
between teams. ARki features include:
Uses markerless vision-based Tracking systems
Light estimation (uses the camera sensor to estimate the amount of light avail-
able and applies the correct lighting to virtual objects)
Create multiple layers in 3D
Create interactive presentations
Record videos
Create and save unlimited projects
Import FBX files directly from Gdrive, Dropbox, and Onedrive
Comments:
ARki application provides some trial models see the Figures (3.2, 3.3) below.
These models are only for visualization.
The user must be subscribed to use all the application features.
I tested this application with a high and low lightness room. In the low lightness
room, the phone could not detect a surface where the model will be overlaid.
The application is only available on iOS devices, and virtual models cannot be
calibrated every time the application is launched.
3 Market Analysis 34
Figure 3.2: Trial model from ARki
Figure 3.3: Trial model from ARki
3 Market Analysis 35
3.3 DAQRI
DAQRI is an American augmented reality company, which was founded by Brian Mul-
lins and Gaia Dempsey, in 2010. DAQRI is the leader in Professional Grade AR that
enables workers to be more involved and to connect digital content to the real-world to
improve productivity. Innovative developers, application builders, and professional ser-
vices companies like Amazon Web Services, Oracle construction, SAP, IBM, and Au-
todesk are working with DAQRI to build professional-grade augmented reality solu-
tions. DAQRI features include:
DAQRI Show: is a natural combination of video. Voice and 3D visualization also
enable observers to direct real-time view with digital tools.
DAQRI Tag: it helps in managing operations visually and linking live data.
DAQRI Scan: it captures realistic photos, shareable 3D models using the Auto-
desk platform.
DAQRI Model: transforms high-resolution 3D models from Autodesk BIM Docs.
DAQRI Smart Glass: they are portable and lightweight wearable for workers
having ultra-low latency rendering to display complex workloads, for indoor and
outdoor use.
Comments:
This application uses only an HMD device. Therefore, there is no applica-
tion available to download on the apple store or google play.
3 Market Analysis 36
Figure 3.4: DAQRI application (extracted from DAQRI website https://daqri.com/partners/)
3.4 Dalux Viewer
Dalux is a Danish company created in 2005. The company tried to make the construc-
tion industry more efficient and smarter. They developed at first a BIM viewer applica-
tion that allows the user to have access to the BIM model and sheets using
smartphones or tablets. Moreover, to erase the boundaries between the real and digital
environment, the Danish company developed a new technology tool called TwinBIM.
It is based on Augmented Reality. With the help of smartphones and tablets, TwinBIM
merges the BIM model with the physical world. Dalux application includes the following
features:
Dalux BIM Viewer: is free access application. It shares BIM models and
drawings. Using Navisworks plugin and combining 2D drawings and 3D
models.
Dalux Box: is a BIM documentation coordinator with having unlimited stor-
age and mobile access. Integrated with BIM 3D viewer, documentation, hy-
perlinks, public markups, comparing sheets as well as having BIM server
Dalux Field: this field include features all in one, gaining access to the pro-
jects and responding simply by using the application
DaluxFM: it is one of the most user-friendly systems which are integrated
with BIM. its Supports 2D and 3D BIM on iOS as well as Android
TwinBIM: this feature uses augmented reality to merge BIM models with the
physical world with the help form smartphones or tablets. It has offline ac-
cessibility to make the use of TwinBIM in construction sites more managea-
ble, and it helps to discover flows and issues as well as the collaboration
with all members.
Comments:
After contacting the company, they provided me with full access to the applica-
tion along with a project.
Dalux is a BIM-viewer application that provides 3D models on a smartphone.
The user can choose between the architecture model, installations model, or
structural model (Figure 14). Moreover, by clicking on the AR button (Figure 15),
the user can view the model in AR.
3 Market Analysis 37
There is no AR figure taken because of the large space needed to overlay the
project.
Figure 3.5: Dalux Menu
3 Market Analysis 38
Figure 3.6: Dalux BIM viewer
3 Market Analysis 39
3.5 Fologram
Gwyllim, Cameron and Nick are the founders of the application Fologram. Fologram
is a collection of applications and plugins that run in mixed reality devices and tend to
integrate with Rhino and Grasshopper. In Fologram, geometry, layers and grasshopper
parameter can be modified in real-time to create powerful tools for design, communi-
cation, collaboration, and fabrication using Smart-glasses or mobile devices
Features:
Create fabrication instruction (help to build a complex structure by giving the
correct instruction)
View and modify the geometry of Rhino and Grasshopper in real-time
Architectural drawings and presentation
Change layers, geometry, and materials in real-time
Create or track Aruco maker or QR code
Create a shared experience with multiple devices
Comments:
The application has a free feature as well as paid features. I have access only to free
features. Therefore, my feedbacks are limited.
Figure 3.7: Fologram model
3 Market Analysis 40
3.6 AR Mapper
AR Mapper is an application that was developed by Immotef Company. Immotef is an
international technology company that grew out of the mobile application world as well
as for the construction sector. It was founded in 2018. AR Mapper is an application that
makes the use of 2D prints on construction sites unnecessary and eliminates human
errors. With the help of AR Mapper technology and its application, the site manager,
contractors, or subcontractors can follow work precisely and digitally. Following are the
features of AR Mapper:
AR Mapper can allow 3D protection of an entire project based on every layer;
either its plumbing, insulation, electrical or any other technical installation
Report work on a daily basis and implement comments, including follow up
and communication, it also allows making annotations
The work uploaded is precisely stored in a server, where the information is
easily accessible through authorized personnel
Measuring and Planning
It can display plans in AR on a designated location
It tends to check the installation with the help of holographic overlay, which is
collaborated with 3D
Comments:
There no application available to run some tests.
3 Market Analysis 41
Figure 3.8: Examples of AR Mapper applications ( extracted from the AR Mapper website:
https://www.immotef.com/ar-mapper)
3.7 Smart Reality
Smart Reality application is developed by JBKNOWLEDGE Company, providing tech-
nology for construction and insurance. This company was founded out of Texas A&M
University by James Benham, Jim Benham and, Sebastian costa in 2001. Smart Re-
ality app is there latest and profound development in construction technology. It is
based on augmented reality using a mobile device and other wearable devices. Fol-
lowing are the features of Smart Reality application:
Real-time visualization
Smart Reality app simplifies paper plans to facilitate incredible levels of asso-
ciation and cooperation in the field as well as in the office
Allows users to walk around BIM models detailed in 3D virtual reality
It could transform any company’s plan file viewing and construction projects
for the future
Comments:
There is no application available to run some tests.
3 Market Analysis 42
Figure 3.9: Example of SmartReality application(Extracted from:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNYBmkLZmaY)
3.8 Visual Vocal
Visual Vocal was founded by John San Giovanni and Sean B House in 2015, and it is
headquartered in Seattle, Washington DC. Visual Vocal is currently in use by large
scale universal construction companies Like McKinstry, Walter P Moore, GLY as well
as well-known global architecture organizations, including NBBJ, Perkins Will, HOK,
and many others. Visual Vocal is a revolutionary platform for virtual reality as well as
augmented reality communication, documentation, and training. It is a breakthrough
new communication system designed for the near future of ubiquitous AR. Complex
construction and engineering projects waste billions due to decades-old communica-
tion technologies. Still, now with Visual Vocal’s technology, Construction and Engineer-
ing projects can be accomplished excitingly on a large target market. Following are the
features of Visual Vocal:
Visual Vocal’s unique system enables the rapid creation, sharing, and con-
sumption of augmented reality as well as virtual reality content.
The content created by Visual Vocal can be easily and safely stored in the
cloud.
Construction teams can create high-resolution experiences using Visual Vocal
in under two minutes using any iOS or Android devices.
3 Market Analysis 43
Visual Vocal’s interface is ideal for hastening decision making for intricate con-
struction and engineering projects.
It allows users to use mobile virtual reality to recapitulate information with fast
voice annotation. Its workflow can power into a real-time meeting that may
comprise of local or remote as well as circulated messaging for later viewing.
Comments:
The application does not provide a trial period.
Need a code to test the features of the application.
An interesting feature of Visual Vocal is the combination of AR and VR with
BIM. The user of AR and the user of VR can collaborate simultaneously on the
same work.
Figure 3.10: AR user (extract from the website of Visual Vocal)
3 Market Analysis 44
Figure 3.11: VR user (extract from the website of Visual Vocal)
3.9 Storyboard VR
Storyboard VR application is designed by Artifact, which was founded in 2006 by Rob
Girling and Gavin Kelly, headquarters in Washington, US. Storyboard VR is a tool that
was developed for Architects, artists, and creators across industries. Artifact develops
this tool to eliminate hindrances in creativity and making the impossible real. Following
are the features of Storyboard VR:
create and produce a VR experience, save time and money early in the devel-
opment process
Storyboard VR help to transform communication also in creating and experi-
encing content
Contains pre-loaded 3D sphere maps and planes
Upload transparent images, like PNG files
The menu gives users the ability to control and let the user access to the sto-
ryboard story progression and make adjustments.
Comments:
3 Market Analysis 45
The application uses virtual reality. Therefore, there is no application available in the
Apple store or google play. In the figure below, you can see how the user can create a
new plane, sphere, cylinder, etc. by using a paddle and wearing an HMD (Figure 3.12)
Figure 3.12: StoryBoard VR (extract from the website of StoryBoard VR: https://www.artefact-
group.com/case-studies/storyboard-vr/)
3.10 Trimble
Trimble company was initiated in November 1978 by Charles Trimble. It is a service
technology company based in Sunnyvale, California. The company offers facilities
global businesses in Agriculture, Transportation and Logistics, Building Design, Con-
struction and Operation, Natural Resources, Utilities and Government, Geospatial,
Survey and Engineering, Civil and Site Construction and Engineering, Optical and La-
ser Construction Tools, Mapping and GIS, and Software.
Trimble allows connecting with HMD or HHD device, which operates with mixed reality
for site efficiency, effectively by providing detailed arrangements for holographic infor-
mation on the worksite. That permits employees to evaluate their different models over-
lapped in the framework of their physical situation. Trimble applications include:
Trimble SiteVision (see Figure 3.12): Helps to visualize the models using HHD
in the real world with GPS enabled augmented reality. It includes the following
feature
-Field Reporting
3 Market Analysis 46
-Pre-Construction
- Measure position using GNSS
-Collaboration: share, communicate, and collectively interact in real-time
Trimble Connect for HoloLens and Trimble XR10 with HoloLens 2 (Figure
3.13): Connect the project data directly to the field so the user can directly ex-
plore and interact with the BIM model. It includes the following feature:
-Optimize coordination
-Real-time visualization
-Coordination: Enhanced coordination to improve workflow
-Step by step guidance
-Support for.SKP,.IFC., RVT, DWG, .DXF and more
- Multiple model overlay
- track issues
Comments:
The application is only available on Android devices
Trimble XR10 with HoloLens 2 is an advanced version of Trimble Connect for
HoloLens.
Figure 3.13: Example of Trimble SiteVision (Extracted from:https://sitevision.trimble.com/)
3 Market Analysis 47
Figure 3.14: Example of Trimble XR10 with HoloLens (Extracted from https://mixedreality.trimble.com/)
3 Market Analysis 48
3.11 Conclusion
The following table compares every application in the technology they use, the areas
and the displays
Application Technology Areas Displays
BIM
viewer
AR VR Inspec-
tions
Architec-
ture
Construction
and mainte-
nance
Facility
manage-
ment
HMD
/HHD
Gamma
AR
HHD
ARki HHD
DAQRI HMD
Dalux
viewer
HHD
Fologram Both
AR Map-
per
HHD
Smart Re-
ality
HHD
Visual Vo-
cal
HHD
StoryBoard
VR
HMD
Trimble
Both
Table 3-1: Comparing the application
3 Market Analysis 49
Common features:
Most of the applications share many common features:
Architecture visualization
Writing notes on elements
Discover flaws and issues
Collaboration
Captures realistic photos
Measuring and Planning
Reduce material consumption
Personal comments:
Every application has its own technology and purpose in the AEC industry. In my per-
sonal view, Visual Vocal and Fologram are two promising applications. The first has
combined AR and VR with BIM. That means the user in the construction site uses AR
in collaboration with another user that follows him using VR to do the work. The second
application help to build a complex structure by giving the correct instruction.
My feedback about the applications is limited, due to (1) the lack of the correct area to
overlay the projects, (2) limited features in the trial period, and (3) the availability of the
applications.
4 Conclusion and Future work 50
The design of a building is today revolutionized with the BIM process. Construction
engineers base their studies on making a 3D digital model containing all the elements
of the projects. The implementation of the BIM process is complicated in construction
companies. The models contain a lot of information. They are hardly viewable and
manipulated. This thesis work proposes to support them using AR technologies. AR
brings virtual information onto the real world using HHD or HMD. It has also proven its
efficiency and efficacity in many other industries such as medical, advertising, enter-
tainment, tourism, military, etc.
According to the study’s mention in 2.2.4, AR+BIM system tends to optimize the design
to provide support for the construction phase by providing real-time visualization of the
design which has led to a better understanding of the concept, increase of the produc-
tivity, improve communication between the workers as well as reduce the number of
errors. But still, AR+BIM system has difficulties to overcome such as misalignment
virtual with a real object, stronger tracking systems, and AR devices as well as the
acceptance of the AR.
In the third chapter, I tested and highlighted some features of the AR BIM application.
The applications are used in different areas such as architectural visualization, con-
struction, maintenance, inspection, and facility management. My feedback is limited
because of the need for the right area to overlay the project, the availability of the
application, and the limited features in the trial period.
4.1 Future work
AR and BIM integration are a recent topic. Researchers are working on a different
aspect to optimize their integration. They are exploring distinct features of this integra-
tion so that they improve it effectively in the future. Future work includes:
Adding a new tool to compare and register the as-built situation or the progress
of the designs plan and make the control of geometric quality parameters more
efficient by improving a stable and accurate positioning of the AR platform.
4 Conclusion and Future work
4 Conclusion and Future work 51
The use of cloud-based systems that store, process, and synthesize all design
data as a result of the concept, design, development, construction, renovation,
and demolition. AR and BIM will be significantly affected and will benefit from
other technological advances, from cradle to cradle construction projects that
include wireless sensor technology and big data and will collect and use infor-
mation throughout the life of the building.
Integrating time and cost change (4D and 5D) in BIM+AR to display construction
site information in real-time and provide practical simulation.
Improve the efficiency of the information transfer about the progress of work
through real-time visualization.
Working on Synergy of technologies that will apply in the construction industry.
Such integration will present 3D scanning and mixed reality model in conjunc-
tion with big data, smart homes, and smart cities.
Examine how AR affects work performance in terms of quality, implementation,
reduction of losses, and increasing human resources productivity.
5 Bibliography 52
Azuma, R. (1997, August). A Survey of Augmented Reality. In Presence:
Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 6, 4, 355-385. Retrieved from
https://www.cs.unc.edu/~azuma/ARpresence.pdf
Azuma, R., Baillot, Y., Behringer, R., Feiner, S., Julier, S., & Macintyre, B. (2001,
November ). Recent advances in augmented reality. IEEE Computer Graphics
and Applications, pp.34-47. Retrieved from https://ieeexplore-ieee-
org.eaccess.ub.tum.de/document/963459/authors#authors
Abualdenien, J., & Borrmann, A. (2019). A meta-model approach for formal
specification and consistent management of multi-LOD building models.
Advanced Engineering Informatics, 40, 135-153.
Abualdenien, J., & Borrmann, A. (2020). Vagueness visualization in building models
across different design stages. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 45, 101107.
Bichlmeier, C., Wimmer, F., Heining, S. M., & Navab, N. (2007). Contextual Anatomic
Mimesis Hybrid In-Situ Visualization Method for Improving Multi-Sensory Depth
Perception in Medical Augmented Reality. 2007 6th IEEE and ACM
International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented reality, (pp. pp.129-138).
Nara, Japan. Retrieved from https://ieeexplore-ieee-
org.eaccess.ub.tum.de/document/4538837/authors#authors
Blum, T., Kleeberger, V., Bichlmeier, C., & Navab, N. (2012). Mirracle: An augmented
reality magic mirror system for anatomy education. Virtual Reality Short Papers
and Posters (VRW), 2012 IEEE. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261308641_Mirracle_An_augmented
_reality_magic_mirror_system_for_anatomy_education
Borrmann, A., König, M., Koch, C., & Beetz, J. (2018). Building Information Modeling :
Technology Foundations and Industry Practice. Springer. Retrieved from
https://ebookcentral-proquest-
com.eaccess.ub.tum.de/lib/munchentech/detail.action?docID=5520323
Brian Mullins, G. D. (2012). DAQRI. Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved from
https://daqri.com/about/resources/
5 Bibliography
5 Bibliography 53
Cameron Newnham, N. v. (2018). Fologram. Retrieved from https://fologram.com/
Carmigniani, J., Furht, B., Anisetti, M., Ceravolo, P., Damiani, E., & Ivkovic, a. M.
(2010). Augmented reality technologies, systems and applications. Multimedia
Tools and Applications, 341–377. Retrieved from https://link-springer-
com.eaccess.ub.tum.de/article/10.1007/s11042-010-0660-6
Chionna, F., Argese , F., Palmieri, V., Spada, I., & Colizzi, L. (2015). Integrating
Building Information Modeling and Augmented Reality to Improve Investigation
of Historical Buildings. Conservation Science in Cultural Heritage, p. 16.
Retrieved from https://doaj.org/article/51ae226b933c4a199e43a141a2a59081
Company, I. (2018). AR Mapper. Warsaw/ Ostend , Poland / Belgium. Retrieved from
https://www.immotef.com/ar-mapper
Dalux. (2005). Dalux TwinBIM. Ole Maaløes vej 3, København N, 2200, DK, Danish.
Retrieved from https://www.dalux.com/
DiVerdi, S., & Hoellerer, T. (2007). GroundCam: A Tracking Modality for Mobile Mixed
Reality. Virtual Reality Conference, VR ’07. IEEE, (pp. 75-82). Charlotte, Noth
Carolina, USA. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/224698789_GroundCam_A_Trackin
g_Modality_for_Mobile_Mixed_Reality
Fikouhi, S. (2012). ARki. London , United Kingdom. Von https://www.darfdesign.com/
abgerufen
Fritz, F., Susperregui, A., & and Linaza, M. (2005). Enhancing Cultural Tourism
experiences with Augmented. The 6th International Symposium on Virtual
Reality, Archaeology and Cultural Heritage VAST (2005). Spain. Retrieved from
https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/30925830/short2005.pdf
?response-content-
disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DEnhancing_Cultural_Tourism_experie
nces_w.pdf&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-
Credential=ASIATUSBJ6BAFPWKYOBS%2F20200503%2Fus-
Gheisari, M., & Irizarry, J. (2016). Investigating human and technological requirements
for successful implementation of a BIM-based mobile augmented reality
environment in facility management practices. Facilities, Vol. 34 Iss 1/2, pp. 69
- 84. Retrieved from
5 Bibliography 54
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291377453_Investigating_human_an
d_technological_requirements_for_successful_implementation_of_a_BIM-
based_mobile_augmented_reality_environment_in_facility_management_prac
tices
Gheisari, M., Goodman, S., Schmidt, J., Williams, G., & Irizarry, a. J. (2014). Exploring
BIM and Mobile Augmented Reality Use in Facilities Management. Construction
Research Congress 2014, (pp. 1941-1950). Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269047977_Exploring_BIM_and_Mo
bile_Augmented_Reality_Use_in_Facilities_Management
House, J. S. (2015). Visual Vocal. Seattle, Washington DC. Von
https://www.visualvocal.com/ abgerufen
Irawati, S., Green, S., Billinghurst, M., Duenser, A., & Ko, a. H. (2006). An Evaluation
of an Augmented Reality Multimodal Interface Using Speech and Paddle
Gestures. 16th International Conference on Artificial Reality and Telexistence,
ICAT 2006, (pp. pp 272-283). Hangzhou, China: Springer. Retrieved from
https://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10092/2310/12603298_2006-
ICAT-ARUsingSpeechPaddleGestures.pdf?sequence=1
James benham, J. B. (2001). Smart reality. Bryan, TX. Retrieved from
https://jbknowledge.com/introducing-our-new-application-smartreality
Johnson, S., Gibson, M., & Mutlu, a. B. (February 2015). Handheld or Handsfree?:
Remote Collaboration via Lightweight Head-Mounted Displays and Handheld
Devices. CSCW ’15: Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer
Supported Cooperative Work & Social, (pp. p. 1825–1836). Vancouver BC
Canada. Retrieved from http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~bilge/pubs/2015/CSCW15-
Johnson.pdf
Juan, C. ( 2009). Augmented Reality and Tangible Interfaces for Learning. Valencia,
Spain. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221906240_Augmented_Reality_an
d_Tangible_Interfaces_for_Learning
Juan, C., Canu, R., & Giménez, a. M. (2008). Augmented Reality Interactive
Storytelling Systems Using Tangible Cubes for Edutainment. 2008 Eighth IEEE
International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, (pp. pp.233-
5 Bibliography 55
235). Santander, Cantabria, Spain. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/4352441_Augmented_Reality_Intera
ctive_Storytelling_Systems_Using_Tangible_Cubes_for_Edutainment
Kamphuis, C., Barsom, E., Schijven, M., & Christoph, a. N. (2014, September).
Augmented reality in medical education? In Perspectives on Medical
Education? (pp. 300-311). Springer. Retrieved from
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40037-013-0107-7
kelly, R. G. (2006). StoryBoard VR. Washington, US. Retrieved from
https://www.artefactgroup.com/case-studies/storyboard-vr/
Koch, C., Neges, H.-M., König, M., & Abramovici, M. (2014). BIM-based Augmented
Reality for Facility Maintenance using Natural Markers. Australasian Journal of
Construction Economics and Building Conference Series, 2 (1), 23-34.
Retrieved from https://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/index.php/AJCEB-Conference-
Series/article/view/3767
Lup, F. H., Santhanam, A. P., Imielinska, C., Meeks, S., & P, R. j. (2007). Distributed
Augmented Reality With 3-D Lung Dynamics—A Planning Tool Concept. IEEE
Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine, 1-6.
Marimon, D., Sarasua, C., Carrasco, P., Álvarez, R., Montesa, J., Adamek, T., . . .
Gascó, a. P. (2010, January). MobiAR: Tourist Experiences through Mobile
Augmented Reality. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228979424_MobiAR_Tourist_Experi
ences_through_Mobile_Augmented_Reality
Mekni, M., & Lemieux, a. A. (2014). Augmented Reality : Applications , Challenges and
Future Trends. Computer Science, 205-214. Retrieved from
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a77e/78e46a0cdfdc191e732e23da3deac57fd
366.pdf
Milgram, P., & Kishino, a. F. (1994, December). A Taxonomy of Mixed Reality Visual
Displays. EICE Transactions on Information Systems, Vol E77-D, No.12
December 1994., 1-15. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231514051_A_Taxonomy_of_Mixed
_Reality_Visual_Displays
5 Bibliography 56
Mistry, P., Maes, P., & Chang, a. L. (2009). WUW - Wear Ur World - A Wearable.
Proceedings of the 27th international conference extended. Boston, MA, USA:
Association for Computing Machinery / Special Interest Group on. Retrieved
from
https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/61366/Maes_WUW%20Wear.
pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
NIBS. (2019). National BIM standard United States version 3. Retrieved from National
Institute of Building Sciences: https://www.nationalbimstandard.org/
NIBS, C. o. (2008). Commitee of the National Institute of Building Sciences.
Papagiannakis, G., Singh, G., & Magnenat-Thalmann, a. N. (2008). A Survey of Mobile
and Wireless Technologies for Augmented Reality Systems (Preprint).
Computer Animation and Virtual Worlds 19(1), 3-22. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/216813780_A_Survey_of_Mobile_an
d_Wireless_Technologies_for_Augmented_Reality_Systems_Preprint
Paul Milgram, H. T. (1994). Augmented reality: A class of displays on the reality-
virtuality continuum., (S. Proceedings of SPIE - The International Society for
Optical Engineering 2351). Kyoto, Japan. Von
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228537162_Augmented_reality_A_cl
ass_of_displays_on_the_reality-virtuality_continuum abgerufen
r.l., G. T. (n.d.). GAMMA AR. Luxembourg. Retrieved from https://gamma-ar.com/
Rabbi, I., & Ullah, S. (2013). A Survey of Augmented Reality Challenges and Tracking.
Acta graphica: znanstveni časopis za tiskarstvo i grafičke komunikacije, 29–46.
Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236461845_A_Survey_of_Augmente
d_Reality_Challenges_and_Tracking
Ramos, F., Trilles, S., Torres-Sospedra, J., & Perales, a. F. (2018, December). New
Trends in Using Augmented Reality Apps for Smart City Contexts. ISPRS
International Journal of Geo-Information, 1-23. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329663405_New_Trends_in_Using_
Augmented_Reality_Apps_for_Smart_City_Contexts
Riedlinger, U., L. O., & Prinz, a. W. (2019, April). Tango vs. HoloLens: A Comparison
of Collaborative Indoor AR Visualisations Using Hand-Held and Hands-Free
5 Bibliography 57
Devices. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 1-15. Retrieved from
https://doaj.org/article/ee471e612e154e05a30599a852c95604
sciences, N. I. (2019). Retrieved from National BIM standard United States version:
https://www.nationalbimstandard.org/
Trimble. (2020). Mixed Reality. Von Trimble: https://mixedreality.trimble.com/
abgerufen
Ullah, S. (2011, January). Multi-modal Interaction in Collaborative Virtual
Environments: Study and analysis of performance in collaborative work.
Université d’Evry-Val d’Essonne. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281532188_Multi-
modal_Interaction_in_Collaborative_Virtual_Environments_Study_and_analysi
s_of_performance_in_collaborative_work
Wang, J., Wang, X., Shou, W., & Xu, B. (2014, September 30). Integrating BIM and
augmented reality for interactive architectural visualisation. Construction
Innovation, pp. 453-476. Retrieved from https://www-emerald-
com.eaccess.ub.tum.de/insight/content/doi/10.1108/CI-03-2014-
0019/full/html#loginreload
Wang, X., E.D.Love, P., Kim, M. J., Park, C.-S., Sing, C.-P., & Hou, L. (2012,
December 9). A conceptual framework for integrating building information
modeling with augmented reality. Automation in construction, pp. 37-44.
Retrieved from https://www-sciencedirect-
com.eaccess.ub.tum.de/science/article/pii/S0926580512001793#!
Wang, X., Truijens, M., Hou, L., Wang, Y., & Zhou, Y. (2014, February 12). Integrating
Augmented Reality with Building Information Modeling: On-site construction
process controlling for liquefied natural gas industry. Automation in construction,
pp. 96-105. Retrieved from https://www-sciencedirect-
com.eaccess.ub.tum.de/science/article/pii/S092658051300215X#!
Wille, M., Wischniewski, S., Scholl, P. M., & Laerhoven, a. K. (2014). Comparing
Google Glass with Tablet-PC as Guidance System for Assembling Tasks. 2014
11th International Conference on Wearable and Implantable Body Sensor
Networks Workshops, (pp. 38-41). Zurich, Switzerland. Retrieved from
5 Bibliography 58
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286650979_Comparing_Google_Gla
ss_with_Tablet-PC_as_Guidance_System_for_Assembling_Tasks
Williams, G., Gheisari, M., & Irizarry, J. (2014). Issues of Translating BIM for Mobile
Augmented Reality (MAR) Environments. Construction Research Congress
2014, (pp. 100-109). Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269047503_Issues_of_Translating_
BIM_for_Mobile_Augmented_Reality_MAR_Environments
Williams, G., Gheisari, M., Chen, P.-J., & Irizarry, J. (2015, January 1). BIM2MAR: An
efficient BIM translation to mobile augmented reality applications. Journal of
Management in Engineering, pp. 1-8. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270844716_BIM2MAR_An_efficient_
BIM_translation_to_mobile_augmented_reality_applications
Zhou, F., Duh, H. B.-L., & Billinghurst, a. M. (September 2008). Trends in Augmented
Reality Tracking, Interaction and Display: A Review of Ten Years of ISMAR. 7th
IEEE and ACM International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality,
ISMAR 2008, Cambridge, UK, 15-18th September 2008, (pp. 193-202).
Cambridge, UK. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/216814064_Trends_in_Augmented_
Reality_Tracking_Interaction_and_Display_A_Review_of_Ten_Years_of_ISM
AR
Zlatanova, S. (2002). Augmented Reality Technology. Delft University of Technology,
Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geosciences, Department of Geodesy, Section
GIS Technology. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/27344741_Augmented_Reality_Tech
nology
Hiermit erkläre ich, dass ich die vorliegende Bachelor-Thesis selbstständig angefertigt
habe. Es wurden nur die in der Arbeit ausdrücklich benannten Quellen und Hilfsmittel
benutzt. Wörtlich oder sinngemäß übernommenes Gedankengut habe ich als solches
kenntlich gemacht.
Ich versichere außerdem, dass die vorliegende Arbeit noch nicht einem anderen Prü-
fungsverfahren zugrunde gelegen hat.
München, 15. June 2020 Hedi Moalla
Vorname Nachname
Erklärung
top related